Talk:Amy Goodman/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Clinton interview

This edit was incorrectly crediting interviewers.

Please check the source material before making edits. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead sectiom

I removed the unattributed quote from the lead. Maybe add this further into the body if notability/relevance is established. Also added who tag to mention of her body of work.--Tom 14:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If you read the section, it _DOES_ specify the origin of the quote. Restored. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Ack - origin got removed somewhere along the line - citation added. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

removing blurb

I removed the following blurb:

Michael Della Carpini, dean of the Annenberg School for Communication describes her work:

"She's not an editorialist. She sticks to the facts. She's not a Rush Limbaugh-type who is simply letting her ideology drive what she does," he said. "She provides points of view that make you think, and she comes at it by saying, 'Who are we not hearing from in the traditional media?'"

— Philadelphia Inquirer[1]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a eulogy. Putting a blurb of the sort you'd find on the back of a book cover in the lead is neither encyclopedic nor NPOV. in general, it is not appropriate in WP to insert single-person opinions of this sort into an article. Benwing (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you please cite and link to the specific WP guidelines that you base that conclusion on? Nbauman (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Presenting a praising opinion on a controversial issue with no adjoining contrary opinion is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Setting the opinion off in its own block quote, as you did, is especially problematic in terms of the weight and definitiveness it gives it. The style guide on biographies WP:MOSBIO has a clear description of what goes in the first para, and opinions don't belong. Also, section 2.6 in WP:NPOV specifically says "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." Benwing (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
What evidence do you have that the issue is controversial? What WP:RS disagrees with that quote? Nbauman (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Come on now, you're wikilawyering. You've ignored the gist of what I'm saying in favor of trying to get your way with technical objections. The very fact that she's described as the "voice of the disenfranchised left" is a strong indication that there is controversy over whether she's objective or not -- not to mention the comments all over this talk page, nor the fact that you felt it necessary in the first place to insert a prominent quote specifically claiming that she's not similar to Rush Limbaugh. I don't know that much about Amy Goodman but I've listened to Pacifica Radio before and I know that they are strongly on one end of the political spectrum, and from looking at the Democracy Now! page, it clearly has a similar view. An opinion isn't even a "reputable source" for the truth on any sort of controversy in the first place, regardless of whether it's quoted in some newspaper. Why can't we just stick to the facts and let the reader make up his/her own mind on whether she is biased or not, rather than trying to force one POV into the article? Benwing (talk) 03:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
This is not wikilawyering; this is following the Wikipedia rules of WP:NPOV and WP:CENSOR that the consensus of people on Wikipedia agree to.
You claim that WP rules don't allow statements of opinion or analysis from WP:RS. I asked you to support that claim. You can't, because it's not true. WP rules encourage opinions, as long as they come from WP:RS and we give all significant opinions.
If you object to a "praising opinion on a controversial issue with no adjoining contrary opinion," then the solution according to WP rules (for example WP:PRESERVE) is for you to add a contrary opinion from a WP:RS. If you read Talk above, you will see that I have encouraged people to add contrary opinions of critics of Goodman.
But you can't delete opinions that you disagree with. Nbauman (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Source of quote

Can someone cite an original source for the "My column will include voices so often excluded" quote? The article says it was from her first "Breaking the Sound Barrier" column, and a Google search turned up a lot of quotes saying the same thing, but I could never find the Actual Column this is supposed to have come from. Can someone else do better? - dcljr (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Harassment by Canadian Border Services

This news story seems more than relevant to add:

Something tells me this story isn't over yet, either.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent edits/coverage to this article in light of the Canadian Border Services controversy. The direct quote from her Vancouver speech was so perfect for the article. This article was the primary source of information I found for this story, and the first place I heard it, as it was NEVER covered in the mainstream media in the USA, and haven't listened to DN! for a while. Good job.--Msr69er (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The "coverage" of the border crossing incident seems a bit excessive — it reads more like a Wikinews article than a section in a WP article. - dcljr (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree. In the long scope of her career, this border crossing incident is just a blip. It should be cut back and summarized in a short paragraph. Serpent-A (talk) 06:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I hadn't read your comment, which is almost identical to mine below. Uh, agreed! Aroundthewayboy (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Border Crossing section WAY too long

Why is this such a huge part of her WP profile? It definitely deserves mention, but when you look back on her whole career, this is one small part of it. It desperately needs to be cut down to one paragraph. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Chairperson of Classic Galloway/Hitchins debate.

Am not sure of how many debates Ms Goodman has Chaired but she was the Chairperson of a classic Political Clash between George Galloway and Christopher Hitchens titled 'Was The Iraq War Justified'?. On at least two occasions it looked like she was going to have to stop both men becoming embroiled in a fist fight, tempers became so badly charged. After the Debate, Hitchens was interviewed by NeoCon Talk-show Host Charlie Wolf in London and complained bitterly that Ms Goodman had been biased in favour of George Galloway. 'She kept interrupting me, and whipped up the audience against me', complained Hitchens. (That is not the impression I got from the Debate). The Debate is available on YouTube.Johnwrd (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Was the debate covered in any reliable sources (it sounds like the Charlie Wolf interview may be worth a mention). This could be a good addition if we can source it. TNXMan 18:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I have Emailed Charlie Wolf and asked him if he can remember the conversation with Mr Hitchens.Johnwrd (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"Left-wing"

Redthoreau has decided that "progressive" is more accurate than "left-wing" as a descriptor for Goodman. I contend that "left-wing" is more accurate, but our opinions of what is more accurate is irrelevant--what matters in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The unsourced " progressive" is simply an opinion. Redthoreau calls The Sunday Telegraph and The Independent "minor sources," when in reality the Telegraph is the largest non-tabloid newspaper in the UK. Drrll (talk) 06:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Drrll, your desire is fairly transparent, considering you have attempted to label both Amy Goodman abd her employer Democracy Now! ---> seen here as "left-wing". Yes you have located a few minor sources that use "left-wing", however per WP:Undue we should only use such a descriptor if the majority of the reliable sources do so. For example, analogously, I could locate a slew of sources that define Sean Hannity as "right-wing" or Keith Olbermann as "left-wing", but you won't find either of them described that way as an indisputable fact in the first line of their articles per WP:NPOV and WP:Undue (as you have attempted to do here). The sources you are utilizing for "left-wing" are two editorial style essays - seen here from The Telegraph and The Independent. Moreover, these articles are not on Democracy Now! specifically, but mention them in passing with a only few words. It is obvious that all you did was put ("Amy Goodman + left-wing") into google and took two of the results. This is not the way to gage WP:Undue, which would require you to look at an array of reliable sources and gage how they most often describe Goodman. You could also look at the fact that ("Amy Goodman + left-wing") gets you 44,300 articles, while ("Amy Goodman + progressive") gets you thrice as many at 142,000 while ("Amy Goodman + liberal") gets you the identical amount of 142,000 results. I could also spend the next 30 minutes listing dozens upon dozens of mainstream sources that do not use the moniker "left-wing" for Goodman - that would show your random obscure essays to be WP:fringe in their view. That is not to say that Goodman does not have a liberal or progressive worldview, but words like "right-wing" and "left-wing" are often used pejoratively, and don't usually belong in the opening lines of the article unless that is the definitive or self-accepted term for the person. Can you show me any single person in your Wiki-editing history that you have added the opening line term "right-wing" to?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 06:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Please see my response at Talk:Democracy Now! Drrll (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
On August 23, 2010 when Amy Goodman appeared on CNN’s John King, USA she was simply introduced (00:48-00:53) as "the host of radio and tv's Democracy Now!" with no adjectives about political persuasion.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

+ Drrll, you are asking me to prove a negative (i.e. prove that sources don't use left-wing) - so since the internet is vast, for starters I just concentrated solely on The LA Times which is your best and main source for this assertion on the Democracy Now! article you yourself mention above. Well, I found it interesting that you want to rely on The LA Times use of "left-wing" in one article, when The LA Times doesn't agree with themselves on the matter. These are just some of the articles from The LA Times that mention Amy Goodman and Democracy Now! which do not mention anything about "left-wing" ... (in fact, I couldn't locate a single other LA Times article that uses the term)

  • March 27, 2005 = "Say what you like about Amy Goodman, host of the national independent news show "Democracy Now!" ... but there's no question she's brave."
  • February 11, 2010 = "Amy Goodman, principal host of the U.S.-based "Democracy Now!" radio news program"
  • November 30, 2001 = "Journalist Amy Goodman" ... "Goodman has been broadcasting the show--currently called "Democracy Now! in Exile"--from a studio in lower Manhattan, transmitting it over the Internet and satellite."

In fact the only times they do apply an adjective they use: "Liberal-minded" and "On the left"

  • November 19, 2009 = "Investigative reporter Amy Goodman has been the fiercely dedicated host of "Democracy Now!" since 1996. In her latest book, "Breaking the Sound Barrier," the liberal-minded warrior goes after corporate media and the voices they've ignored, including community activists in New Orleans, outspoken American soldiers and victims of police brutality."
  • December 24, 2007 = "On the left: Pacifica radio hosts Amy Goodman and David Goodman have written "Standing Up to the Madness: Ordinary Heroes in Extraordinary Times."

They don't even seem to have consensus with themselves.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Troublemaker is closer. But left wing is definitely more accurate than progressive.-G (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry

I believe Goodman's grandmother and other relatives were active in the Jewish anti-sweatshop movement of the early 20th century, which is worth a mention in the article. Also, from where in Europe did her ancestors come? She just took a vacation to the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, so perhaps her ancestors came from one of those places. Badagnani (talk) 07:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, you'd should have something better than "believing" or totally random speculation before you go writing stuff down. — mlc 07:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
This article needs more information on her background. What did/do her parents do for work? Her grandparents? Where did they grow up? What were her high-school and college years like? When did she start in journalism? What historical events help explain her dedication? Etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.232.71 (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Amy Goodman is one of the few people I would call a "hero" however I came to the wiki page looking for confirmation/denial of her coming from the same place(brooklyn) as another of my heros, Carl Sagan, because they say million/billion the same way! I want more biographical info here, this page is soreley lacking on biographical details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.244.214 (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

66.167.244.214 - that is very difficult. Ms. Goodman rarely talks of her personal life in interviews. If this article is rather sparse in details, it's a reflection of her choices. As per WP:BLP guidelines, this is correct, imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlassTwiceAsBig (talk • contribs) 18:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Right Livelihood Award

The article claims she's the first journalist to receive the award but actually looking at the list of recipients I can see others that are arguably also journalists (eg Uri Avnery). I just removed the offending claim but maybe someone can dig up a source for precisely why she recieved the award. Egmetcalfe (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, didn't see that there was more on this in the body of the article. I still don't see justification that she's the first journalist though. Egmetcalfe (talk) 01:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

relationship with Allan Nairn

The source is completely unreliable, and provides no indication as to how they came by the information. Removed. WP:BLP guidelines do not allow for such gossip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlassTwiceAsBig (talk • contribs) 18:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems someone removed the whole "personal life" section. My bad - I should have removed it. Ta!--The glass isn't half full, nor is it half empty. It's twice as big as it needs to be. (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street

Is this, and Goodman's involvement, significant enough to be in her article? Or is the general policy - to wait till the event has reached some sort of conclusion, and then put it in Wikipedia? GlassTwiceAsBig (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If she's involved and there is independent third-party coverage of her involvement, it could be mentioned. TNXMan 13:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I thought she was involved - but it seems she's only covering it. --GlassTwiceAsBig (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

ethnicity

Rostz seems to be quoting WP:OPENPARA to justify the removal of mention of Goodman's ethnicity, despite WP:OPENPARA specifically advising its inclusion. Please explain why you insist on its removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.182.180.64 (talk) 10:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:OPENPARA states that "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." WP:BURDEN states that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." A reliably-sourced citation is required to demonstrate that Goodman's ethnicity is relevant to her notability. Rostz (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Checked other articles, and you're indeed correct. Thanks for clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.182.180.64 (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"in-terror-gation" while trying to get into canada.

Really? Are you kidding me? This whole section reads like she was thrown into a north Korean dungeon. God forbid a person should be asked where they are going, or what they are doing when they ASK PERMISSION to enter a country of which they are not a Citizen. Was she under the mistaken impression that she had some of "right" to enter canada? Highly biased section in bad need of revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.253.16 (talk) 08:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Goodman has never claimed any "right" to enter Canada. Her complaint was based on her treatment, which was inconsistent with that of any other American, much less any other American journalist entering Canada to cover the games. Your "right to enter" argument has no merit. Furthermore, multiple media sources (see citation list) picked up the story and reported her complaint - making it notable and relevant, thus it is Wikipedia policy to record the tone of those media reports - and NOT policy to, as you wish, to "tone it down". Feel free to challenge Wikipedia policy in the appropriate place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.182.180.64 (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
In response you your "any American" comment I can only offer that I find it highly unlikely that no other U.S. citizen (or a Citizen of any other country for that matter) in the history of that inspection station has been asked what they plan to do in Canada for the duration of their visit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.253.16 (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
You find it "highly unlikely"? The incident was documented by multiple reliable sources. Whether YOU believe it or not is irrelevant. See WP:NOR and WP:RS before trying to impose your personal beliefs of likelihood on an article. If you can find a WP:RS which gives a different account of the incident, then by all means bring it forward. What you offer so far, is nothing more than your opinion.

edited to remove obvious bias. Doesn't it now sound more like the type of civil discourse one would expect while speaking to a canadaian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.253.16 (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:NOR. You're rewording and removing material from the article to suit your personal beliefs. That is specifically against Wikipedia policy. So far, you have not displayed anything other than your opinion of the events. You cite no sources, and the only basis for your changes is "more like the type of..." - that sort of personal opinion without any source, is exactly what Wikipedia explicitly does NOT accept. Reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.228.56 (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:NPOV and WP:NOR - your rewording has made it inconsistent with the tone and presentation of the original article, which the previous version was consistent with. I understand your desire to "tone down" articles inconsistent with your viewpoints, but that is not Wikipedia policy. Previous version restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.182.180.64 (talk) 09:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, try again. It's Wikipedia policy to offer an unbiased explanation of events. Perhaps, in line with this, it would be more appropriate to lay out said explanation and make reference to the bias tone in which it was presented in the sited source material. That is, of course, unless you want to make use of Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote some political agenda. If this is the case, why bother siting any source material at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.253.16 (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
More vandalism and people trying to eliminate positions contrary to their beliefs. The border crossing incident was been discussed at length when it was new, and all of a sudden, a few people are crying "biased", more than 2 years after the incident. Sorry, but this is going to require discussion and some consensus. Reverted changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.228.56 (talk) 09:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Unlawful Arrest

Given the result of the lawsuit shouldn't the section "Arrest at 2008 Republican Convention" be rephrased to "Unlawful Arrest at 2008 Republican Convention"? Fountain Posters (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

article vandals

A better description of Goodman was removed from the lead and now someone has blocked the page from edit correction.209.252.250.6 (talk) 08:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Not to worry. The better, fuller description that kept being removed was restored before the article was semi-protected from further unexplained disruptiveness. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Amy Goodman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Susan Lindauer

Amy Goodman declined to interview Susan Lindauer along with mainstream media while she was wrongfully jailed under the Patriot Act, according to Ms. Lindauer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.138.143 (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Amy Goodman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

This article needs some reediting

This reads more like a puff piece than it does a biography, Nothing on her denying Russian collusion or her spreading lies to harm Hillary campaign or the controversy involving her letting a dissent group of radicals take over KPFK because she didn't like not getting enough airtime. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Tanya Barrientos, She’s taking the watchdog to task, Philadelphia Inquirer May 13, 2004
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amy_Goodman/Archive_2&oldid=1136516518"